On February 6, 1995, the University of Maryland and the
University of Baltimore Schools of Law, with financial support from the Maryland Court of
Appeals, inaugurated an innovative project to provide law student assistance to pro se
litigants in four Maryland jurisdictions: Baltimore City, and Baltimore, Montgomery, and
Anne Arundel Counties.
From the inception of the Project, detailed information has
been collected about the individuals receiving services from the project. The purpose of
the evaluation effort has been to determine whether, and under what conditions,
self-representation in domestic matters is an effective strategy for increasing access to
the legal system, without compromising the parties perception that they have received a
fair result and without imposing additional burdens on the judicial system.
In order to further evaluate the impact of the services
offered by the Pro Se Family Law Project, an outcome evaluation was designed by the
Project Staff and conducted under the supervision of Dr. Ray Paternoster, Professor in the
Institute of Criminology at the University of Maryland, College Park. This evaluation was
supported by funds provided by the Maryland Legal Services Corporation. . This evaluation
was based on telephone interviews conducted with 275 clients of the
program from January, 1995, until February 1996. In addition, the research staff of Dr.
Paternoster conducted interviews with judges and masters in Anne Arundel and Montgomery
counties to determine their impressions of the project.
The Problem
The number of family and domestic filings in the Circuit
Court of Maryland has increased steadily and now constitutes fifty percent of all cases
filings. The State-Wide Advisory Council on Family Legal Needs of Low Income Persons
completed a comprehensive study entitled, "Increasing Access to Justice for
Maryland's Families." The Committee's research indicated that one of the major
problems low income individuals face is lack of access to information about domestic legal
rights and remedies. A low income client may identify an organization that can provide
information, such as the court clerk's office or a community organization, but the
subsequent course of events is very uncertain. Resources often cannot provide legal
information and advice because of lack of training or knowledge, because of legal
mandates, or because of limited staff availability.
A related problem for low income clients is lack of access
to legal representation. Other studies have confirmed the wide-spread nature of this
problem. The ABA report :Civil Justice: An Agenda of the 1990s" indicates that even
though per capita income increased in the 1980s, the cost of basic needs spiraled leaving
increased numbers of moderate income and poor people unable to afford personal legal
services. It is well documented that only a small percentage of the family law
needs of low and moderate income persons are met.
This project is designed to address the need for providing
service to pro se litigants in domestic cases in the Maryland court system. An effective
solution to providing assistance to the pro se litigant is a system whereby
attorneys become involved at critical points in the process, without imposing on the
transaction such excessive costs that make the transaction becomes prohibitive. Designing
such a system requires a re-thinking of the role of the attorney, the client, and
non-lawyer support staff. This re-thinking process can lead to new delivery systems for
legal services that are responsive to unmet legal needs of the community and the need of
the judiciary for order and just resolution of conflicts. Empowering clients to
effectively represent themselves with accurate and timely legal information, and
simplified pleading forms is one approach to creating a process that provides increased
access without increasing costs.
Project Summary and Findings
Since February 6, 1995, University of Maryland clinical law
students have been providing assistance to pro se litigants in Anne Arundel,
Montgomery Counties, and the City of Baltimore. By June 30, 1996,over 4,400
individuals will have been served by the project in these two counties and the City of
Baltimore.
The central finding of the research study
is that pro se litigants were very satisfied with the experience of representing
themselves and with the outcome of the process. A significant number would represent
themselves again and not seek the assistance of an attorney. The data from the Evaluation
Study supports the conclusion that assisted pro se services are an important
mechanism for providing access to the legal system for a broad range of individuals who
cannot, or do not want to, retain the services of an attorney. We were able to construct a
profile of the pro se clients that benefited the most from the provided services.
In both Montgomery and Anne Arundel counties the person who
would represent themselves again is one who is slightly higher income, slightly higher
education, slightly younger, This group reports being more satisfied with the project and
court personnel and with the fairness of both procedures and outcome. The profile in both
counties is not dependent on the type of case.
The survey population as well as the entire target group
contain a relatively lower percentage of very low-income clients. (In the survey sample,
only 18% of those surveyed of 50 individuals had household incomes under $10,000). The data suggests that the lowest income client group, which is
also likely to have the lowest educational levels, is the least satisfied with the
self-representation. Ironically, it is the lowest income cohort that may
need the services of a lawyer the most, and it is this population group that is going to
experience a severe cutback in the level of legal services because of the projected
reduction in federal funds and limitations on federal funds that prohibit the use of
federal legal service funds for divorce cases.
Conclusion
The future is ominous in the sense that the population
group that is least able to take advantage of a pro se approach is also being
deprived of traditional subsidized legal aid services. However, the pro se approach
works for a wide range of individuals where the conflicts do not involve major issues that
will require a full hearing and where the dispute has been reduced to an uncontested
matter.
For additional information about this project, and for
detailed analysis of the types of cases where pro se representation seem to work best,
contact by EMAIL
or Nathalie Gilfrich at the University of Maryland School of Law by phone at: 301-596-8818.
